Techdirt. Stories about "brein"Easily digestible tech news...https://www.techdirt.com/
en-usTechdirt. Stories about "brein"https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/td-88x31.gifhttps://www.techdirt.com/Mon, 3 Feb 2014 14:03:06 PSTBREIN Loses Again As Dutch Court Rejects Criminal Prosecution For Copyright InfringementGlyn Moodyhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140203/09142226076/brein-loses-again-as-dutch-court-rejects-criminal-prosecution-copyright-infringement.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140203/09142226076/brein-loses-again-as-dutch-court-rejects-criminal-prosecution-copyright-infringement.shtml
Once upon a time, the Dutch "anti-piracy" group BREIN seemed invincible, winning a number of copyright infringement cases. But recently, its winning streak has come to an end. Last week we reported on how BREIN's attempt to block access to The Pirate Bay had been thrown out, and now we have the following case, as reported by TorrentFreak:

A Dutch man who admitted uploading more than 5,000 e-books to The Pirate Bay has had his case dismissed on appeal. The court ruled that the man can't be prosecuted criminally as copyright infringement cases belong in a civil court. Anti-piracy group BREIN is disappointed, but still has the option to pursue the uploader in a civil action.

Even if BREIN wins that action, the appeal court's decision is a serious defeat for the organization. It means BREIN has failed in its attempt to extend the use of criminal courts to cases that do not involve a criminal organization and where the infringements are not carried out as business activities. Had BREIN been successful, that widening of scope would have had a major impact on the Dutch copyright enforcement landscape.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>not-so-invinciblehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140203/09142226076Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:02:35 PSTDutch Court Says Pirate Bay Block Is Disproportionate, Ineffective And Harming Entrepreneurial FreedomGlyn Moodyhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140128/07532926020/dutch-court-strikes-down-pirate-bay-block-ruling-it-is-disproportionate-ineffective-harming-entrepreneurial-freedom.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140128/07532926020/dutch-court-strikes-down-pirate-bay-block-ruling-it-is-disproportionate-ineffective-harming-entrepreneurial-freedom.shtml
Two years ago, Techdirt reported on a couple of leading Dutch ISPs being ordered to block The Pirate Bay. To their huge credit, they did not take this lying down: they have been fighting it in the courts since, and have just won a major victory against the Dutch "anti-piracy" group BREIN. TorrentFreak has the details:

In its ruling the Court states that the Pirate Bay blockade is disproportionate and ineffective, citing TNO research and the Baywatch report of the University of Amsterdam. As a result, the blockade was found to hinder the Internet providers' entrepreneurial freedoms.

The court based its decision on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which both includes "freedom to conduct a business" and "right to property." In this case the entrepreneurial freedom outweighs property rights, because the blockades are disproportionate and ineffective.

Based on the above, the appeal court overturned the blocking order and ordered the Hollywood-funded anti-piracy group to pay 326,000 euros ($445,000) in legal fees.

That's a great result for a number of reasons. First, because it overturns the block on The Pirate Bay for the two Dutch ISPs concerned (and probably for other ISPs too.) Secondly, because it forces BREIN to pay the significant costs for its long-running attempt to tell ISPs how they should run their businesses. And thirdly, and perhaps mostly importantly, because it creates a precedent that underlines not only the pointlessness of trying to enforce an ineffectual blockade, but also the fact that entrepreneurial freedom outweighs copyright in this situation. Although that ruling only applies in the Netherlands, other courts in Europe may well take it into consideration when they are called upon to make similar rulings.

The case can be appealed to the Supreme Court, said a spokesman for the Court of Appeals. But while the Supreme Court is able to overrule the verdicts of lower courts, it only examines whether a lower court observed proper application of the law in reaching its decision. At this stage of the legal process, the facts of the case as established by the lower court are no longer the subject of the court's scrutiny.

It is too early to say if the case would be appealed, said Brein attorney Joris van Manen, adding that it is certainly worth considering.

So it would seem that BREIN may be down in this case, but it is not yet out.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>down-but-not-outhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140128/07532926020Wed, 20 Feb 2013 07:42:55 PSTRIAA Still Can't Figure Out How To Use Google's DMCA Tools, Blames GoogleMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130219/13482922031/riaa-still-cant-figure-out-how-to-use-googles-dmca-tools-blames-google.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130219/13482922031/riaa-still-cant-figure-out-how-to-use-googles-dmca-tools-blames-google.shtmland somehow that's just not enough. It turns out that this isn't actually true, but we'll get to that in a moment. Much of the article focuses on Dutch extremist anti-piracy group BREIN saying that the limit needs to go away. But there is this bizarre statement from the RIAA as well:

“Google has the resources to allow take downs that would more meaningfully address the piracy problem it recognizes, given that it likely indexes hundreds of millions of links per day. Yet this limitation remains despite requests to remove it,” RIAA noted.

In addition to unthrottling the URL limits, RIAA also says it wants to lift the cap on the number of queries they can execute per day to find infringing content.

“Google places artificial limits on the number of queries that can be made by a copyright owner to identify infringements.”

This seems wrong on a variety of levels. As we noted last year when the RIAA raised some of these complaints, part of the problem appears to be that the RIAA doesn't understand how Google's tools work. There are some technical limitations in terms of how many URLs a "trusted partner" using automated means can submit at once, but no actual limit on the number of URLs that can be submitted total. There's a practical reason for the setup: in case an automated system goes haywire, Google wants to be able to catch it. But that's it. It does not limit the searches or the ability to submit DMCAs. We asked Google for specifics, and they confirmed:

While there is no limit on the number of DMCA notices that a copyright owner or reporting organization may send us, we put safety limits on the number of automated submissions that partners can make at one time using our tools in order to protect our systems from technical problems. We increase these limits for partners who have demonstrated a consistent track record of submission quality and volume.

On top of that, there's the issue that takedown notices go through a review process before the takedowns happen, to hopefully weed out abuse. For the RIAA to compare handling of takedown messages to the automated process of searching is really bizarre. It's basically them saying they want to be able to automatically takedown any content with no review whatsoever. That's a massive problem for a variety of obvious reasons. Indexing the web for search is an automated process. Taking sites down requires at least some level of review, even if only cursory. Apparently, the RIAA not only misunderstands the tools available, but also the DMCA process itself.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>but-of-coursehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130219/13482922031Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:33:49 PDTBREIN Scores Another Victory, Making It Suck Even More To Be A Dutch Internet CompanyMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121025/01504120821/brein-scores-another-victory-making-it-suck-even-more-to-be-dutch-internet-company.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121025/01504120821/brein-scores-another-victory-making-it-suck-even-more-to-be-dutch-internet-company.shtmlfound hosting company XS Networks liable and ordered it to pay up because it hosted a torrent site. We've discussed issues of secondary liability, but this goes well beyond what we've seen elsewhere. As TorrentFreak explains, super-aggressive Dutch anti-piracy organization BREIN was trying to shut down the site SumoTorrent and get information about its operators. XS Networks, who briefly hosted the site, pointed out that it required a court order to turn over any info. This is a perfectly reasonable stance. However, it later backed down and reached an "agreement" with BREIN to hand over some info. By that time SumoTorrent had moved on to another host, and the info that XS Networks had to give to BREIN was incorrect or useless. BREIN then claimed that XS Networks was responsible for this situation and sued for damages.

This is the point that any reasonable court would laugh at BREIN and tell its boss Tim Kuik to learn a little something about suing the proper party, rather than a tool provider (especially one who simply asked for a court order before coughing up private info and who later was clearly willing to negotiate in good faith). Instead, the court went in the other direction, and said that SumoTorrent "is clearly facilitating copyright infringement" and that XS Networks should have magically known that to be the case, and shut the site down when BREIN first asked. Even if you're a copyright system supporter, this ruling should scare you. It takes away any sort of due process. Most reasonable people admit that whether or not a site is illegal should require at least a basic adversarial trial in which the site is able to make its case. But here the court ignores all of that, and the fact that it hadn't yet proved SumoTorrent guilty of infringement, and just insists that XS Networks should have magically accepted that BREIN must be right. Talk about a recipe for abuse by BREIN and other copyright holders.

If you're a hosting company in the Netherlands, your legal liability just shot way, way up. Apparently, if you don't magically kick off every site that might be enabling someone to break the law, you yourself may be liable for any illegal actions done on the site (even without such illegality ever being proved). That seems like a great recipe to get a bunch of Dutch hosting companies to reconsider even being in business.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>holy-secondary-liabilityhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121025/01504120821Fri, 14 Sep 2012 07:59:00 PDTDutch Court Says Linking Can Be A Form of Copyright InfringementMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120914/05442020382/dutch-court-says-linking-can-be-form-copyright-infringement.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120914/05442020382/dutch-court-says-linking-can-be-form-copyright-infringement.shtmllinking to infringing content could be infringing itself, if certain conditions are met (which they were in this case). The key part here was that the site that was sued was linking to material first, and thus revealing it to the world... even though it does not appear that the site in question uploaded or hosted the content. This is troubling for a variety of reasons which we'll get to, but first the background of the case.

A Dutch television presenter, Britt Dekker, did a nude photoshoot for Playboy, and a bunch of the images leaked ahead of the December, 2011 release of the magazine. A website called GeenStijl.nl had a story about it, and included a link to a zip file that contained all the images that had been uploaded to the cyberlocker FileFactory.com. Playboy had the file taken down from FileFactory, and GeenStijl linked again to the same images on Imageshack. And from there a game of whac-a-mole followed with Playboy having the images taken down, but the images quickly spread all over the place. For what it's worth, at the time, there was a lot of speculation that Playboy itself had leaked the images to build up buzz.

Either way, GeenStijl got sued for copyright infringement -- and they responded by pointing out that they just linked to the content. The court put forth a three pronged test, and found that GeenStijl, even with just links, met the criteria for infringement. As explained on the FutureOfCopyright site (linked above):

The court considered if the publishing of the hyperlinks by GeenStijl.nl constituted a publication (Dutch: ‘openbaarmaking’) as defined in article 12 of the Dutch Copyright Act. In principle, placing a hyperlink on a website is not a publication, unless three criteria are met: there must be an intervention, a new audience and profit.

Intervention: The leaked pictures of Britt Dekker were stored on FileFactory.com, a cloud service to store files and share them with others. However, these files can’t be found through search engines, only users with the exact URL have access to the files. The URL to the file with the leaked pictures was publicly unknown, until GeenStijl.nl made it available to its large audience by publishing an article about it, the court says. Therefore, the actions of GeenStijl.nl are an intervention, according to the court. Without this intervention, the public wouldn’t have had access to the pictures before their official publication in Playboy.

New audience: According to the court, there wasn’t an audience for the pictures before GeenStijl.nl published its article.

Profit: By publishing the URL to the pictures, GeenStijl.nl had the unmistakable intention to attract more visitors, the court states. With success: in 2011, the article about Dekker was the best viewed topic on GeenStijl.nl, according to the statistics.

By my reading, all three of the prongs of the test, as presented here, are somewhat problematic. The reasoning on the first prong -- intervention -- just doesn't seem right. The claim that "the public wouldn't have had access" but for the link on GeenStijl isn't true. They did have access since the files were already on the cyberlocker. GeenStijl perhaps made it a lot more widely known, but at this point you're arguing about whether or not it's legal to make a factual statement. Did the photos exist on a cyberlocker? Yes. Saying so shouldn't be infringing.

The second prong really just seems like a repeat of the first prong. The entire argument that seems to have convinced the court is that GeenStijl was the first to link to the content. Under US law you face much more liability for leaking "pre-release" material, so you could argue that this is a similar situation in the Netherlands, but again, it's not GeenStijl "leaking" the material. They're acting as a journalist, telling people such content exists.

The final prong is completely useless. Basically it seems to say that because the article was popular, that's evidence for infringement. I can't see how that makes any sense at all. If GeenStijl was, for example, selling access to the images, then there's a much stronger argument of "profit." But just saying that because the site got a lot of traffic, they profited seems like a dangerous precedent.

The Future of Copyright article mentions the cases against FTD as being similar, but I'm not sure that's true. While a lower court had found FTD guilty for linking, on appeal it was said that links weren't the problem, it was the promoting of uploads that got FTD in trouble.

Either way, it's of little surprise that Tim Kuik, the head of the Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN, is cheering on this ruling, suggesting that this case will be useful in other efforts to go after sites that link to infringing content. Of course, given the specific nature of the ruling, including how much of it seemed to rely on the fact that GeenStijl was the first to somehow create an audience for these images, I do wonder if it really has that much value for BREIN in those types of cases. Similarly, it may be a bit exaggerated to claim -- as GeenStijl did in response to the ruling -- that the ruling outlaws Google. Again, the ruling does appear to be highly fact-specific.

It is a troubling ruling for a number of reasons. Merely setting up the precedent that a link itself is infringement has all sorts of problematic implications. But the highly specific details associated with the ruling, especially the reliance on being the first to publish the link, at least suggests that this has limited value as a wider precedent.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>seems-a-bit-extremehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120914/05442020382Wed, 18 Jul 2012 07:18:48 PDTAnti-Piracy Song Pirated By Anti-Piracy Group; Collection Society Fined For Failing To Get RoyaltiesMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120717/03544819727/anti-piracy-song-pirated-anti-piracy-group-collection-society-fined-failing-to-get-royalties.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120717/03544819727/anti-piracy-song-pirated-anti-piracy-group-collection-society-fined-failing-to-get-royalties.shtmlHarry Potter) he sought compensation, going to local music collection society Buma/Stemra, asking them to get the $1.3 million he believed he was owed. Buma/Stemra initially ignored him, and then there was a weird situation in which a Buma/Stemra board member tried to offer to "help" Rietveldt, with some questionable conditions attached, including getting a cut of the money owed.

Apparently, the latest in the case is that Buma/Stemra has now been told to pay Rietveldt €20,000 and attorneys' fees -- and to continue its efforts to get him the royalties actually owed. And yes, this seems a bit confusing. Remember, it was the anti-piracy group and the movie studios who appeared to violate his copyright (yes, on his anti-piracy song). Buma/Strema's job was supposed to be to collect the money. So how is it that they're now the ones being fined? It appears some of it becomes a contractual issue in which Buma/Strema promised to try to collect the fees owed, but apparently didn't do enough after it decided it would be too much work to actually track down those who used the song. The judge in the case noted that, at the very least, Buma/Strema had a duty to inform Rietveldt that it had given up after promising otherwise. Either way, the end result is that the collection society now owes Rietveldt more money and has to continue trying to collect even more. All over an anti-piracy song that was pirated by anti-piracy groups (mainly NVPI, who is apparently the parent group for the well-known anti-piracy organization BREIN).

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>follow-that?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120717/03544819727Fri, 6 Jul 2012 15:55:00 PDTDutch ISP Shows That BitTorrent Traffic Increased After Pirate Bay BanMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120706/04233719601/dutch-isp-shows-that-bittorrent-traffic-increased-after-pirate-bay-ban.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120706/04233719601/dutch-isp-shows-that-bittorrent-traffic-increased-after-pirate-bay-ban.shtmlforce ISPs to block access to The Pirate Bay. After a series of court rulings, the ISPs had no choice but to comply. Now, one of them, XS4All has published a report noting that BitTorrent traffic on its network appeared to increase following the blockade of The Pirate Bay, rather than the other way around. According to the summary at TorrentFreak, the ISP thinks that perhaps all of the attention paid to this issue, because of the trial, has helped drive more interest in unauthorized file sharing:

“I think that the increase is a result of all the media attention for the lawsuit and the blockade. Perhaps people who until then had never downloaded thought ‘I hear so much about downloading music and movies, let me try it!’.”

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>if-you-keep-doing-what's-not-effective...https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120706/04233719601Wed, 1 Feb 2012 05:33:34 PSTDutch ISPs Refuse To Block The Pirate Bay Without A Direct OrderMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/00580017598/dutch-isps-refuse-to-block-pirate-bay-without-direct-order.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/00580017598/dutch-isps-refuse-to-block-pirate-bay-without-direct-order.shtmlblock access to The Pirate Bay (after fighting it in court for years), the order only applied directly to two ISPs: xs4all and Ziggo. BREIN, the local anti-piracy group, had then demanded that other ISPs also start blocking access. However, it appears that KPN and T-Mobile are refusing, saying that they will not do so without a direct court order:

“KPN sees the blocking of websites as a drastic measure for which a court order is required,” KPN said in a statement, adding that innovation is needed to curb piracy.

“KPN doesn’t believe a blockade is the right solution. What is needed are robust, attractive business models that are easy to use and offer a fair deal to both producers and consumers of content.”

T-Mobile also said that it will only respond to court orders, while it emphasized the value of an open Internet.

“T-Mobile strongly supports an open Internet and is fundamentally against shutting off access to websites. Dutch law is very clear when it comes to blocking access to the Internet. T-Mobile will only respond to a court ruling, not to demands from a private party such as BREIN.”

It's good to see that these ISPs are standing up for the right to an open internet. Of course, I do wonder how such block orders work under Netherlands' (first of its kind) net neutrality law.

In the meantime, the two ISPs who were subject to the court order have begun the blockade, with Ziggo pointing users to an information page... in which they tell users that it's easy to get around the blockade.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>good-for-themhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120131/00580017598Fri, 2 Dec 2011 07:42:39 PSTAnti-Piracy Group Caught Pirating Song For Anti-Piracy Ad... Corruption Scandal Erupts In ResponseMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111201/17275016947/anti-piracy-group-caught-pirating-song-anti-piracy-ad-corruption-scandal-erupts-response.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111201/17275016947/anti-piracy-group-caught-pirating-song-anti-piracy-ad-corruption-scandal-erupts-response.shtmlmost aggressive of the anti-piracy groups out there. So there's some amusement in watching as it gets caught up in a scandal that started when it pirated music for an anti-piracy campaign. BREIN had asked musician Melchoir Rietveldt to compose a song for a video that was only to be used at a local film festival. The terms of the deal were strict: the song was only for that one anti-piracy video at that one film festival. However, Rietveldt later discovered that the anti-piracy ad was being used all over the place -- a fact he discovered when he bought a Harry Potter DVD and noticed the video... with his music.

After determining that the music had been used tens of millions of times in such an unauthorized manner, he contacted the local music collection agency, Buma/Stemra, asking them to seek somewhere around $1.3 million owed from BREIN. Buma/Stemra ignored him. Eventually, however, apparently a Buma/Stemra board member, Jochem Gerrits, reached out, and said he could help Rietveldt get paid... but with some questionable conditions. According to TorrentFreak:

In order for the deal to work out the composer had to assign the track in question to the music publishing catalogue of the Gerrits, who owns High Fashion Music. In addition to this, the music boss demanded 33% of all the money set to be recouped as a result of his efforts.

The conversation between Gerrits and the composer’s financial advisor was recorded by Pownews, and during the conversation the financial advisor confronts Gerrits with his unconventional proposal.

“Why do you have to earn money?” he asks, as usually all of the money goes directly to the artists.

“It could be because a lot of people in the industry know that they are in trouble when I get involved,” Gerrits responds, adding that he can bring up the topic immediately in a board meeting next week.

Once again trying to find confirmation for the proposal, the composer’s advisor later asks if the music boss indeed wants one-third of the money.

“Yes, that’s the case, but then [the composer] would make 660,000 euros and now he has nothing,” Gerrits responds calmly.

This is apparently making news across the Netherlands, and Gerrits has resigned. As for BREIN, it's insisting that the whole thing is "a contractual issue" and that it is "not involved."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>wowhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111201/17275016947Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:05:00 PSTEntertainment Industry Gets Another Usenet Provider To Shut Down: Is Usenet Illegal?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111107/03472216656/entertainment-industry-gets-another-usenet-provider-to-shut-down-is-usenet-illegal.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111107/03472216656/entertainment-industry-gets-another-usenet-provider-to-shut-down-is-usenet-illegal.shtmlwave a magic wand and somehow figure out which Usenet posts were infringing and which weren't. Not surprisingly, that's impossible, and NSE has announced that it's just shutting down entirely instead. NSE was the largest Usenet provider in Europe. And now it's dead. Because the entertainment industry refuses to adapt, and thus blames the technology for how the technology is used, a useful (legal) service is gone. For what it's worth, NSE will continue to appeal the court's ruling... but only on principle. As an operating effort, it appears NSE is dead. Another one killed by the entertainment industry.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>the-state-of-the-internethttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111107/03472216656Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:29:00 PDTUsenet Provider Ordered To Wave Magic Wand And Make Infringing Content DisappearMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110930/02081916144/usenet-provider-ordered-to-wave-magic-wand-make-infringing-content-disappear.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110930/02081916144/usenet-provider-ordered-to-wave-magic-wand-make-infringing-content-disappear.shtmlwon a lawsuit against Usenet provider News-Service.com (NSE). The court has ordered NSE to magically make all infringing works available via Usenet disappear. Of course, if you understood how third party systems work, you would know that the only way to do that is to no longer be an open platform, which takes away all the value of such a service. NSE responded pretty much as you would expected -- in shock about the impossibility of the order:

We are very disappointed with the Courtís verdict. It is technically as well as economically unfeasible to check the contents of the 15 to 20 million messages that are exchanged on a daily basis. Added to which, there is no automated way of checking whether Usenet messages contain copyrighted material or whether permission has been obtained for the distribution of such material.

It's kind of amazing that a court of law can't understand how the internet works. For its part, BREIN claims that this is "a breakthrough step." Yeah, taking down major communication platforms because the organizations you represent refuse to adapt. That's a "breakthrough"?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>how?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110930/02081916144Tue, 1 Mar 2011 06:18:59 PSTDutch Anti-Piracy Group May Face Legal Charges For Stealing ServersMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110226/14381113283/dutch-anti-piracy-group-may-face-legal-charges-stealing-servers.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110226/14381113283/dutch-anti-piracy-group-may-face-legal-charges-stealing-servers.shtmlstealing computers. The group, which is a private, industry-backed group, seems to fancy itself as some sort of law enforcement adjunct, despite the fact it has no actual legal authority. This has created problems in the past, when the courts have questioned why the police seemed to rely solely on BREIN's questionably collected evidence, rather than doing their own investigation. And some lawsuits have even been dismissed for relying too much on BREIN's highly questionable evidence.

So, by now, you would think that BREIN would be a bit more careful these days not to pretend it has more legal powers than it does. However, the group only seems to go further and further. Last week, it came out that BREIN was able to "seize" a group of servers from a small South African American ISP without any legal basis at all. It just convinced the data center, WorldStream, to simply hand them over. The ISP, Alejandra Transporte SA, who has nothing to do with the warez topsite that BREIN insisted were using those servers, was not at all happy and went to court to complain about the fact that a bunch of its servers had been stolen, causing massive damages to its business. The court granted the request to get the servers back from BREIN, but is quite worried that BREIN went through the private contents on some of the servers, completely in violation of privacy laws.

It seems this entire lack of any sort of due process and private industry groups stealing servers and domains with little basis is a growing trend. It sounds like Alejandra Transporte is considering taking further legal action against both BREIN and WorldStream. I'm curious if the usual defenders of seizures think that this particular seizure was warranted?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>if you haven't paid for it, it's stealinghttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110226/14381113283Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:51:00 PSTIf The MPAA Takes Down A Dozen Torrent Sites, And No One Notices, Did They Really Exist?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110127/17535112865/if-mpaa-takes-down-dozen-torrent-sites-no-one-notices-did-they-really-exist.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110127/17535112865/if-mpaa-takes-down-dozen-torrent-sites-no-one-notices-did-they-really-exist.shtmlreally does and in announcing how it has shut down all sorts of "piracy" sites that no one seems to know exist. Lately, it's been teaming up with the MPAA on such things. The latest is the claim that BREIN and the MPAA have been able to shut down a dozen more "torrent sites." Except that no one seems to know what sites these were, and there's no indication that anyone actually used them. As TorrentFreak points out, when sites people actually use get taken down, people start emailing to tell them about it -- but no such emails came in with these shutdowns. Kind of makes you wonder just what BREIN and the MPAA are actually doing.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>if a tree falls...https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110127/17535112865Mon, 27 Dec 2010 02:11:18 PSTDutch Court Dismisses Criminal Charges Against P2P Index Site, Noting Law Enforcement Relied Too Much On Anti-Piracy GroupMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101223/17025312404/dutch-court-dismisses-criminal-charges-against-p2p-index-site-noting-law-enforcement-relied-too-much-anti-piracy-group.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101223/17025312404/dutch-court-dismisses-criminal-charges-against-p2p-index-site-noting-law-enforcement-relied-too-much-anti-piracy-group.shtmlgrowing involvement in copyright infringement lawsuits that really should be civil matters between copyright holders and those they accuse of infringement. However, with our government often believing just about anything Hollywood tells them, and with a long term effort by the industry to have the government act as its own private police force, we're seeing things like the totally botched seizure of domain names of blogs and forums on a questionable basis. It seems that the US is not the only country with this sort of problem. Earlier this year, we noted that a court in the Netherlands was questioning why it appeared that Dutch law enforcement had totally outsourced its investigations to the industry "anti-piracy" group BREIN (who, we had noted, in the past somehow ended up keeping evidence) that should not be allowed to be done by private parties.

Well, in that case, against an indexing site called ShareConnector, the court has dismissed the case over the "faulty evidence," specifically having to do with law enforcement relying way too much on industry sources, rather than doing the real investigation themselves. This follows on an earlier criminal case where the operator of ShareConnector had all charges dismissed as well.

Once again, all this highlights is how these issues are not as clear cut as the industry and its supporters often make out. It's getting rather silly how often we hear people insist that this or that service or software are "obviously" infringing on copyrights -- and no case should even be heard before they're shut down/seized/thrown in jail/fined whatever. Copyright is not a black or white situation -- there's an awful lot of gray and it should be determined in a court of law, rather than just on the say so of certain industries who benefit from shutting down alternative means of distribution that interfere with their ability to be a gatekeeper.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>hmmmhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101223/17025312404Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:32:15 PSTDutch Anti-Piracy Group, With MPAA's Help, Able To Grab 29 US-Hosted Domains... With No Trial Or NoticeMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101215/11300412292/dutch-anti-piracy-group-with-mpaas-help-able-to-grab-29-us-hosted-domains-with-no-trial-notice.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101215/11300412292/dutch-anti-piracy-group-with-mpaas-help-able-to-grab-29-us-hosted-domains-with-no-trial-notice.shtmlseizing domain names without notice to the proprietors of those domains, it appears that others are doing the same as well. TorrentFreak reports that the Dutch anti-piracy group, BREIN, with help from the MPAA, has been able to get 29 different domain names -- all hosted in the US -- to point to BREIN's homepage instead. The owners of those domains were apparently given no notice and no recourse. It sounds like most of the sites did not host any content but linked to potentially infringing content.

Whether or not you believe that simply linking to potentially infringing content should be against the law, we're seeing yet another example of the simple lack of due process and how this may impact other areas. If BREIN can get US domains shut down, what's to stop other countries from doing the same thing? China doesn't like reporting by an American site about China? What's to stop it from trying to "seize" that domain? Even if we grant the idea that many of these domains were engaged in or encouraging unauthorized copying of works covered by copyright, why should BREIN and the MPAA simply get to shut them down without any sort of trial?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>everyone-seize-domains-nowhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101215/11300412292Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:52:00 PDTDirty Tricks: Anti-Piracy Group Caught Planting Evidence In Usenet CaseMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101014/00544511421/dirty-tricks-anti-piracy-group-caught-planting-evidence-in-usenet-case.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101014/00544511421/dirty-tricks-anti-piracy-group-caught-planting-evidence-in-usenet-case.shtmlto prove their legal point. FTD has argued, reasonably, that its members are not uploading content, but merely pointing out where it is available. BREIN argued, in response, that it was often the same users who would upload and point it out. Their evidence? A user who uploaded and pointed out the same movie. The problem? The guy who did that... works for BREIN. That sounds like planting evidence, a tactic law enforcement is sometimes seen to employ -- but BREIN is a private organization. Apparently, BRIEN is so closely tied to Dutch law enforcement that they seem to think they're part of it -- even going so far as to copy some law enforcement abuses.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>that-doesn't-seem-righthttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101014/00544511421Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:06:47 PDTDutch ISPs Fighting Demands That They Block Access To The Pirate BayMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100627/0052549970.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100627/0052549970.shtmlsued The Pirate Bay, telling it that it needs to block all Dutch users from accessing the site. On the ISP front, it appears that a few Dutch ISPs are teaming up to challenge the demand that it needs to block foreign sites like The Pirate Bay:

"The basic principle of the Internet is that ISPs pass on traffic to their customers unfiltered, they are merely a gateway," says Niels Huijbregts, spokesman for XS4ALL. "The Pirate Bay website is not hosted on a Ziggo server, so Ziggo can't be held responsible for restricting access to the website. BREIN is targeting the wrong people."

While this makes sense, it seems like every time we hear about court cases involving BREIN, the group comes out on top. So if I had to guess, I'm assuming that BREIN will win again. Hopefully I'll be surprised and the Dutch courts will pick up some common sense somewhere along the way.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>freedom-of-choicehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100627/0052549970Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:28:00 PSTBREIN Shut Down Hundreds Of Torrent Sites That Apparently No One Ever UsedMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100110/1558217691.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100110/1558217691.shtmlshut down nearly 400 different BitTorrent sites in 2009, along with another 200 plus "illegal sites." However, as TorrentFreak notes, no one seems to know what the majority of these sites were. It had cataloged somewhere around two dozen sites that were shutdown, but didn't hear a peep from the users of the other hundreds of sites shut down -- which seems odd, since users of such sites are usually pretty quick to tell TorrentFreak of any shutdowns. So, did BREIN shut down sites that no one uses? Or did those users not tell anyone? Anyone have any answers?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>if-a-file-sharing-site-that-no-one-uses-closes,-does-it-make-a-sound?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100110/1558217691Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:46:00 PSTMininova Deletes Most Torrents Under Court ThreatMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091126/1159467097.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091126/1159467097.shtmlquestionable tactics), had ordered Mininova to remove all infringing links from its index. Even though the court admitted that Mininova itself was not infringing, it was told to remove any torrents that linked to infringing material. Since there's simply no way to know whether the torrents link to infringing material, and tests of some filtering solutions proved to not do a very good job, the site has decided to remove all torrents other than those specifically approved by the site. End result? The entertainment industry may have wac'd another mole, as Mininova users simply scatter to other providers. But the industry hasn't done anything to get people more interested in buying. How many more moles get wac'd before anyone figures this out?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>another-mole-wac'dhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091126/1159467097Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:31:22 PDTDutch Court Orders Pirate Bay To Delete TorrentsMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091022/1901166648.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091022/1901166648.shtmldefault judgment against The Pirate Bay, ordering it to delete certain torrents and block Dutch web surfers from reaching the site. The Pirate Bay's founders protested the ruling, noting that they had not been properly informed of the case in the first place, and that other items in the lawsuit were highly questionable -- including what appeared to be falsified documents submitted by BREIN, the Dutch anti-piracy agency.

The court has now annulled the original default judgment, but the new ruling is basically the same thing. The founders were told to delete torrents and block Dutch surfers from at least part of the site. The court also rejected the claim that the founders do not still own the site, saying they presented no evidence that the site had actually been sold to another entity, or any evidence of who now owned the site. While I still think it's questionable to force the site to block results of what is really a search engine, there is a point about who owns the site. I recognize why The Pirate Bay has done what it's done, but it almost feels like they're trying to be too cute about the ownership issue.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>yet-againhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091022/1901166648Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:19:02 PDTPeter Sunde Brings Criminal Charges Against BREIN, Claims They Falsified Documents Against The Pirate BayMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091008/1038336461.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091008/1038336461.shtmlagainst The Pirate Bay at the behest of BREIN, the local anti-piracy group. Now, there was a lot of things odd about the case. BREIN has always been quite aggressive in demanding that sites be blocked or that ISPs be forced to block sites, but this case went really far. BREIN was able to bring the case without even letting any of the four defendants (the same four who were on trial in Sweden) know about the case. However, BREIN told the court that the defendants were fairly summoned, despite no evidence that was true at all. BREIN also claimed that The Pirate Bay had launched a DDoS attack on BREIN's website, and seemed so close to the court that when the defendants themselves asked the court for the very ruling made against them, the court told them that they could only get the copy directly from BREIN.

Of course, after all this happened, a second problem cropped up. Swedish authorities did an investigation and came to the conclusion -- as the four defendants had said all along -- that those four guys did not actually own The Pirate Bay. Instead, it was a company called Reservella, information that came out to the public after the attempt by GGF to buy The Pirate Bay (which has since collapsed).

BREIN wasted little time in adding Reservella to its lawsuits... but then did something strange. It came up with a credit report that purports to prove that one of the four defendants, Fredrik Neij, is the CEO and a director of Reservella. However, there were some oddities in that credit report, and Peter Sunde (one of the other defendants, better known as brokep) began investigating and has rather detailed evidence that the entire credit report is a fake. Almost none of the information on the report checks out, and the companies listed -- including Experian, who supposedly supplied the credit report, claim that they have no record of this particular credit report at all.

Sunde is now filing criminal charges against BREIN and its boss Tim Kuik, claiming that they forged a document and used it for fraud (trying to get money out of these four defendants). As Sunde notes, such charges seem to be far more serious than inducing copyright infringement. The evidence that Sunde lays out certainly looks convincing that the document is fake, but what's still not clear is how BREIN got the document, and whether it was responsible for creating the document, or if it was merely convinced that the fake document was real from someone else.

Still, it doesn't look good for BREIN to be caught using what appear to be faked documents in its lawsuit.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>spectrial-indeedhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091008/1038336461Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:16:43 PDTWhat Happened To 'If You Didn't Pay For It, It's Stealing'?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/1833126117.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/1833126117.shtml"if you haven't paid for it, you stole it." Of course, that's not actually true. But, if the entertainment industry wants to claim that, shouldn't it live by those rules too? Apparently, the managing director of Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN, that's currently involved in numerous lawsuits against file sharing sites, is happily talking up the fact that he now has possession of a laptop from a "hacker" and that it was confiscated from that hacker. So, clearly, BREIN didn't pay for it. Doesn't that mean it was stolen by their own definition? While the police may have the right to confiscate goods, BREIN is not the police. It's a private industry organization, that claims it's against theft, but doesn't seem to mind participating in "getting things without paying for it" when it has the chance.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>except-when-we-do-ithttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090904/1833126117Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:04:00 PDTMininova Told To Remove Infringing MaterialMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090826/1250066004.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090826/1250066004.shtmlblock certain content. It's difficult to see how or why this should be Mininova's responsibility. As a search engine, it has no way of knowing which content is authorized and which is infringing. Yet, a court has sided with BREIN and told Mininova it needs to remove all infringing torrents from its site. The court is giving the site 3 months to implement a filter system, or face a fine of 1,000 euros per infringing torrent. Of course, Mininova already takes down torrents when alerted to the fact that they're infringing. Demanding that the company pre-determine which torrents are considered "infringing" doesn't make much sense (especially since the torrents themselves are not the "infringing" content). This seems to be yet another ruling with a court finding that assisting with potential copyright infringement somehow needs to be stopped.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>good-thing-there's-none-on-the-site?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090826/1250066004Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:42:48 PDTDutch Court Sides With Anti-Piracy Group; Says Pirate Bay Must Block Dutch Web SurfersMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090730/1019425716.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090730/1019425716.shtmlmust block access to The Pirate Bay or other sites. Historically, such blocks have been a disaster. They don't work (people find an easy way around them) and the announcement of the ban itself almost always generates a lot more traffic to the banned site. It's like free advertising. However, the anti-piracy group BREIN appears to have taken a different strategy in the Netherlands. Rather than asking the court to have ISPs block The Pirate Bay, it asked the court to tell The Pirate Bay to block Dutch web surfers. BREIN, of course, has a history of overreaching, including demanding names of file sharers against local privacy laws and declaring that a usenet group, by itself was illegal.

And yet again, a court has ruled in the entertainment industry's favor, going against basic civil rights. The court has said that The Pirate Bay must start blocking Dutch web surfers from reaching the site. Somehow, I doubt the folks at The Pirate Bay will comply. They've already complained about the process, noting that they were never summoned to the court to defend themselves, while the ruling itself actually spends a fair amount of time claiming that the folks from The Pirate Bay were fairly summoned through a variety of means. The court basically concludes that they should have known about the case, and their failure to show up will not stop the case from moving forward.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>or-else-what?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090730/1019425716Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:54:48 PDTNow BREIN Says The Pirate Bay Should Block Dutch ISPsMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090722/0224075620.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090722/0224075620.shtmldemanding that The Pirate Bay block access from Dutch surfers. Even more bizarre, it's already dragged representatives from the proposed buyers of the The Pirate Bay, GGF, into court, despite the fact that the deal hasn't concluded (and may never actually happen). When do judges recognize that these organizations don't have any logical basis for what they claim, but that they'll simply throw everything at the wall to see what sticks in a mad dash to protect an obsolete business model from innovation?